>If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing

has this ever been refuted

>>712637080 (OP)
it is a meaningless incomplete syllogism with an unfounded premise

>>712637080 (OP)
Waters have been muddied and FUD was spread but generally this statement has still stayed true to this day.

>>712637080 (OP)
>why does the library keep sending me threats to return their book? I don't own it afterall!

>>712638068
You're not buying the book from the library either.

>>712638068
retard

Pretending any of you have ever been in a library is the funniest post I've seen on /v/ in some time

>>712638068
I can't physically touch or take away a digital game content, this comparison doesn't make any sense at all

>>712637080 (OP)
kill yourself zoomer normalfag
go back to xitter or wherever you crawled out of
piracy has never been and will never be stealing, there's no "if" it's just free shit and that's all it'll ever be, no morals or anything like that
I hate that shitty wannabe rebel quote so much

>>712637080 (OP)
It's just a silly platitude that only gets parroted because people like to sound clever without actually putting any thought into it. It doesn't matter whether buying is owning or not, piracy still isn't stealing.

>>712637080 (OP)
Yes because the premise is wrong.
You don't "buy" software. You never did.

>>712637080 (OP)
Ok, you try that defense in court and see how well it works for you.

>>712638679
So all digital stores are breaking the law by mislabeling their rentals as purchases?

Looks like the shills are finally up

>>712638854
Who is gonna take you to court for downloading a copy of someone else's files in this day and age? Come on now.

>>712638609
The excuse would be you're stealing their potential profits. If you couldn't copy it with ease you'd buy it from them, and that's why drm is a thing.

>>712638529
Maybe it's just my age showing, but literally everyone used to go to libraries back in the 90s and early 2000s. You needed to if you were in any kind of school and/or education.

>>712638965
You're right. The owner just has to file a DMCA claim against the site hosting the pirated material and it just gets taken down by the government, no questions asked and no chance for the pirate site to have their day in court.

Which is good. Criminals don't deserve to have a chance to defend themselves or justify their actions in court.

>>712639415
what about torrents and direct download sites hosted on servers in countries outside of your local court reach? that's really how it all operates nowadays anyway

>>712638549
You can touch the HDD/SSD where it saved

>>712639602
I buy the disk and then obtain the files to put on it separately, not the same thing.

>>712638965
>the personal risk is low, so crime is okay

>>712639791
Is it still a crime If I paid for it but then resorted to obtaining it in a way that lets me store it indifinitely without having to rely on internet access and servers being online?

>>712639943
There are so many different scenarios but I was just being a cock. You should be able to do with with something you purchase.
I think IP law is a good idea but like any good idea; greed got to it eventually.

>>712640056
"With with" should be "that with".

I don't know why that happens but it scares me.

>>712639538
Then the government orders ISPs to deny access to stuff like that. Sure there are ways around that too, but every year, the ability to block access to pirated material is getting better and dissuading more and more people just simply because they don't want to put in the ever increasing effort to circumvent anti-piracy measures.

>>712638913
>mislabeling their rentals as purchases
yes, actually

>>712640185
Americans are cucked for doing this, this doesn't happen at all where I live.

>>712640251
If there's one thing the US will aggressively enforce, it's intellectual property rights.

So i can rob homes if the owner is just a renter!?!?!?!?!?

>>712639115
By that time atleast around here libraries died out fast thanks to ciber cafes, everyone would just rather pay some guy .50$ for 30 minutes of internet then print whatever info they could find, it wasn't until i was about to graduate middle school that all teachers started to implement a strict no wikipedia rule, or to atleast use more than that one source of info.

>>712637080 (OP)
Being a jew must be so easy, you just take what you want. And if the silly goyim complains, you take it to your rabbi and he will sort things out in your favor.

>>712640640
>implying you wouldn't if you could

>>712638913
You’re purchasing a limited license to use the software. Its not rocket surgery.

>>712637080 (OP)
Define owning. Because to many retards here owning seems to mean "it can't be taken away from me", and that's not how it works, because everything can be taken away from you.
Piracy definitely isn't stealing though, but it's still an immoral act perpetrated only by niggers.

>>712640749
I have morals, an alien concept for jews.

>>712639943
Yes because you don’t purchase “the game”. You purchase a license to use the software with certain terms and agreements in place. Basically, you’re stupid.

>>712641025
>Basically, you’re stupid
I paid for it you little rabbi, don't tell me what to do now.

>>712640973
it's not immoral. IP law is just capitalism shenanigans.

>>712637080 (OP)
Ok, but what does the Israeli gentleman have to do with that? Are you insinuating something, OP?

>I will wash your car for $10
>>deal
>hey where's my money?
>>I don't own the service you provided, see ya later
yes that's a crime

>>712640973
>because everything can be taken away from you.
I feel you're being obtuse and turn an actually decent point into something ridiculous. If people were to define owning as "it can't be taken away from me" then obviously they mean that within the context of it can't be arbitrarily turned off by some corporate faggot in a different country because he decided that he either hates you or just doesn't want the game to be played anymore. No one would make the point of "it can't be taken away from me" and mean it as a universal statement that includes people coming at you with malicious intent backed by violence or the force of a state

>>712638269
just like how you dont buy games of gamepass

>>712641189
then stop blindly agreeing to the tos you fucking retard. Perhaps the reason you hate jews is because if you had a lawyer they'll hate you for signing any and all contracts.

>>712637080 (OP)
piracy isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement

/thread

>>712637080 (OP)
>>If buying isn't owning
stop repeating this retarded mantra. you're only helping them convince everyone that you don't own your games

>>712639415
I yearn for the day in which corpos filing an invalid DMCA claim get taken to court for $150000 per claim
an eye for an eye

>>712642119
Who is saying anything about terms of service? I am saying that If I bought it I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

>>712641025
contrary to what you faggots love to claim pressing the A button is not a signature. if you want that the agreement to stand then you'll have to make me sign it in person in front of a notary public before I purchase the game, you kike
of course you'll never accept because the legal liability and legal fees involved will drive every single customer away

>>712642343
No, you can't. And this doesn't just apply to software. The government and/or the entity you purchased something from can impose all kinds of usage restrictions as conditions for being allowed to purchase/own something.

>>712642580
>No, you can't
I did this for 2 decades now, who the fuck are you even trying to fool here?

>>712637543
speak english faggot

>>712642558
Wrong. There's a legal concept called "implied consent". Implied consent means you can be legally bound to an agreement by taking certain actions. For example, you give implied consent to have your person and your belongings searched by airport security just by simply purchasing a plane ticket.

It's the same with the terms of service for video games. By simply purchasing the game, you are giving your implied consent to abide by the terms of service. And yes, implied consent does hold up in court.

>>712642885
ToS is not legally binding.

>>712642661
Just because you haven't been caught yet doesn't mean what you're doing is legal.

>>712637543
>unfounded premise
how so? plenty of publishers and manufacturers have written it into their ToS that you are merely licensing a copy and any modification can render your license void.
the whole statement is incomplete but the premise is aboslutely solid, they don't want you 'owning' anything.

>>712642970
Yes it is. At least in the US it is.

>>712643094
no it's not , not by default.
Bad ToS have been nulled by court after the fact lots of times.

>>712643094
sure thing and severability clauses exist because...?
they know that their terms are full of shit so they sneak severability clauses in there with full knowledge they know at least a dozen clauses will get struck

>>712642580
>can impose all kinds of usage restrictions
No they can't. Despite what industry shills like you keep trying to gaslight the general populace into believing, shrink wrap contracts aren't actually legally enforcable in the US. The only reason it's not getting challenged is because american justice is not about who's in the right, it's about who can afford to spend the most on legal fees.
The EU has even stricter laws about it, and on top of that defines software as products and not services, regardless of what an a tos/eula says.

>>712643507
>american justice is not about who's in the right, it's about who can afford to spend the most on legal fees.
it's not just that
it's also that courts won't rule on matters that haven't been brought before them. since the costs of doing so are prohibitive in comparison to the minuscule benefits (e.g. a $5 refund) no one takes corpos to court

>>712637080 (OP)
even if buying was owning, piracy still isn't stealing. it's making an unauthorized copy.

>>712643452
>He thinks lawyers haven't learned from that and crafted terms that won't be struck down by courts

They are legally binding. That's why they can take your games away without having to issue a refund. Deal with it.

>>712643619
piracy is a godsend and a moral imperative. without it the entire catalog of several systems, such as the satellaview, would have vanished

>>712643014
Ohhh no! you got me scared shitless now you know that?

>>712643613
You wouldn't even be allowed to take them to court over this. The minimum for small claims court in most states is $200. If your claimed damaged are less than that, the court will not hear your case.

>>712643643
Disney lost one last year , wtf are you talking about?

>>712644072
No, they didn't.

>>712644172
yes they did , the Disney+ thing with that stupid clause "we can't be sued" that was overruled.

>>712637080 (OP)
Look man, eventually you have to let go of everything you are desperately trying to hold on to. Including your self. You'll learn when you're older.

>>712643834
Not the point I was making, retard. The point is that no, you cannot just do whatever you want with your property. For example, if you own a house, you can't turn your backyard into a cornfield if your neighborhood isn't zoned for agriculture. And the government can come in and confiscate the corn you grew without having to compensate you for it.

This idea of "I own it so I can do whatever I want with it" is such a childish mentality that also has no legal standing in any country's legal system.

>>712637080 (OP)
Fine. Consider it renting with an undefined return date.
Better?

Piracy isn't stealing but it is immoral in the sense that the creator/distributor of the good is not compensated, yet the consumer gets the product anyway.

This goes against the unspoken law of reciprocation that underlines all of human trade.

>>712644248
>Thinks a clearly illegal clause is the equivalent of a clause that says "don't pirate out software or we will revoke your license to use it."

Why are poorfag game pirates so retarded?

>>712644658
Why is the publisher not getting compensated immoral?

>>712637080 (OP)
It doesn't really matter if this argument is good or not. The fact remains that it violates copyright law. Piracy is a moral good btw. It's the only way he can actually preserve games.

>>712644774
Why do you feel you should get a product for free?

>>712644664
I didn't say that.
I was replying to the fucking retard that said ToS are legaly binding

>>712644853
What does that have to do with the question?

>>712644487
My point was that I cannot take you seriously after shit you said anymore, way to go champ

Why does /v/ seethe when poor people pirate food that they need to survive but think its ok to pirate video games?

>>712644658
no. Trade happens due to scarsity.
Digital goods costing money is capitalism bullshit

>>712644774
Because they publish (and sometimes distribute) the product? What kind of question is that? Do you think also think truck drivers shouldn't be compensated for hauling goods because they are not the producers of said goods?

Publishers do a lot of heavy lifting in the background, mostly to do with PR, marketing and (sometimes) distribution, all facets of getting a product to market that most non-first party developers simply cannot commit to on their own.

>>712644803
Wrong. The US Library of Congress started documenting and acquiring copies of video games for preservation for quite some time now.

>B-b-but I personally can't access them!!!!

Ah, so it's not really about preservation then.

>>712645026
/v/ is largely just retards and retarded teenagers being contrarian because it's the lowest effort thing to do.

>>712644664
you lost just like disney corpokike
be a good sport and hold that L

>>712645026
do they 3D-copy the food?

>>712637080 (OP)
Piracy has been classified by the law in all lawsuits and events related to it as not stealing. You cannot be fined or jailed for just downloading shit for free, its like if the state executed you for taking a bill of the ground.

The people who actually crack these games themselves and run the cracking groups can be sued for copyright related things, but again, only those people, you yourself can't get in trouble for using their services.


So yes, piracy isn't stealing, it never has been and it never will be. Not to mention that even the danger of being DMCAd as a cracker/repacker is exclusive to the US, you cannot get in trouble for it in any other country.

So in actuality its just americans being dirty cucks like always

>>712645020
>Commits himself to going through life with no understanding of the laws that govern him.

>>712637080 (OP)
There's nothing to refute because that claim doesn't make sense.

>>712638068
Lending is not a crime.

>>712645040
>I am entitled to entertainment (that took thousands of manhours to produce) for free because it is digital!

>>712645193
>Thinks everyone disagreeing with him is the same person.

Retard.

>>712645081
>Do you think also think truck drivers shouldn't be compensated for hauling goods because they are not the producers of said goods?
There are no truck drivers in this scenario though. There are no physical goods. There is no actual manufacturing or delivery happening. You equating "doing PR" to actual manufacturing and calling it "heavy lifting'' is hilarious. You're probably either a NEET or some useless middleman who's only purpose in life is to find a way to profit off of other people's actual work.

>>712645209
Taking words at face value on the 4cuck cannot be healthy, just saying

>your money is just numbers in a computer, therefore the government can pirate it and give it to L'Devious to buy a new iPhone
refute this

>>712640868
>you are purchasing the right to rent something
So do I own my right to rent it, then? If that's the case, how can they revoke the right to rent the software?

>>712645296
Yes. Think bigger. Think pharma bullshit IP laws

>>712645359
That doesn't happen. Easy refutation

>>712644658
>the creator of the good is not compensated
anon, stealing from creators is the lifeblood of publishers. they get all the rights while the people who work on the games get taken out with the garbage the moment the game is out
those classic NES games spent entire afternoons playing in your childhood? not a single cent goes to the people who made them happen
stop batting for publishers, they're the real thieves

>>712645410
and piracy IS stealing, thanks for proving my point

>>712645393
Why would anyone ever create anything that requires money to make if they could not profit from it? Do you expect the entertainment industry to be a fucking charity?

>>712645490
Are you some turbo ESL? Your posts make no sense

>>712645340
Sure, but I find it entirely within the realm of possibility that the majority of people who use this site have no clue how the law works. Especially since most people don't. They say the average person probably commits 100 violations of the law every day and isn't even aware of it.

>>712642343
ok so you're a retard. Do you buy games online? Then you agreed to a tos. If not 90% of AAA titles have a tos show up on first boot. As I said if you hired a lawyer you'll drive them crazy because you're the type of moron to sign a waiver and want to sue when u end up in a hospital

>>712645547
see >>712642970

>>712645425
The government or corporations are naturally middle men too. Why be against publisher's but not all other middle man? Even doctors serve that purpose which is ridiculous.

This thread makes more sense when you realize how many indians are on 4chan now and they all have a built in bootlicking feature where they'll defend the honor of anyone above them.

>>712643452
did you forget when that women died in disney world and the husband couldn't sue because of a Disney plus free trial?

>>712645505
That's what it was before , IP laws for entertainment are only active for 100 years or so.
Ancient Greek Tragedies and Comedies were sponsored by rich people and entrance was free to the public.

>>712645410
It's going to happen. There are already countries talking about moving to 100% digital currency and imposing an expiration date on the money in your bank account. Meaning if you don't use the money by a certain date, the government just takes it from you. You still have to report that money as income though and will still be taxed on it.

>>712645594
see >>712643094

Shut Up

K*kes

>>712645662
yes , court ruled against Disney

>>712643035
Were you raised on the internet? The Premise is faulty because its a tautology, akin to saying hate crimes aren't real because all crimes require you to hate, its just failing to understand what is actually being discussed and instead being a pedant.

"Buying isn't owning" doesn't matter because you are paying them for the right to access what they have made. You don't own a song, you own a license to listen to that song. You [ay for the deed to the land but you don't own the land and it can be reclaimed under duress, but that doesn't give you the legal or moral right to pilfer land just because "buying isn't owning". Licenses and deeds have been part of trade since long before man first began to record their history.

It's nothing more than Sophistry used by pirates to insist that their theft is moral. No real pirate cares about such things, and the wannabe robin hoods who actually think its correct are some of the biggest fools alive today that a simple sentence which is obviously based on a faulty premise is taken by them as gospel.

>>712645682
We're talking about bit more costly endeavors than stage plays, anon. Making video games (to the modern standard at least) is an incredibly expensive undertaking. No one is going to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars so the plebs can be entertained.

>>712638068
In reality you just photocopied the book, who cares

>>712645840
>defending AAA slop

I wish more pirates would just be honest. Yes it is theft, yes it is wrong, yes I'll keep doing it. We don't need any of this reddit "I'm entitled to steal" bullshit. This is the main reason pirates annoy me.

>>712645716
>It's going to happen
2 more weeks

>5635
>doctors are middlemen
I think the corporate bot broke. it's not making sense anymore

>>712641412
It absolutely is immoral. Having something without paying for it, unless it was given to you by its creator, is deeply immoral. You're not entitled to it. White people engage in capitalism.

>>712645940
Dramatic version

>>712645891
Even indies are approaching the "Sell your house if you want to make it happen" territory. Only the most basic games like Undertale could be considered to be cheap to produce, and I doubt you actually want vidya to be nothing but undertales.

>>712642343
You can't though. You can not do whatever you want, you can do what is correct. It is your sole duty in life to make yourself correct at all times.

>>712637080 (OP)
Piracy is not stealing, even if you could buy it.
It's copyright violation.
The owner has copyright, as in it has the right to define who can copy it or not, and you copied without their permission.
That's a crime, it's not theft, it will never be theft , and they only claim that it's theft because it "sounds harsher", but its not theft.

>>712646064
Why would you sell your house to make a game? Have people forgotten what equity is and how to use it?

>>712645505
>not profit from it
Who do you think are paying for the research? Hint: It's not the big pharma companies.
Hint2: Subsidies.

>>712646276
Sean did to scrape together the money to make NMS before big daddy Sony shelled cash his way.

>>712645775
No Disney just stopped blocking the case because of the pr nightmare. Disney plus already isnt doing as well as they wanted and the tos being exposed as "we can legally kill you" wasn't helping. For the record the tos didnt change. Nor did any legal action to disney for having that in the first place. They just aren't using it as a legal defense in this one case.

>>712645840
>hundreds of millions
90% of which is goes to wages for the top brass that had nothing to do with making the game, and useless quota hires that contributes a single thing and leech a paycheck during the rest of the production time for no other reason than they fill a checkmark on a list.

>>712646438
So he's either a financial retard who doesn't know what equity is, or for some reason he had no equity which also makes him a financial retard.

If you know what you're doing, owning a house is pretty much like having your own ATM.

>>712646676
Disney will be studied in the future. Absolutely ridiculous how a company once powerful enough to act as its own country could blow everything up like this, and so quickly too. It is like they got taken over by people who wanted a controlled collapse of the company.

>>712645716
>imposing an expiration date
Credible source or bullshit.
No, if you made the claim then it's up to you to back it up.

>>712646878
I know /v/ wants to believe this but it simply is not true.

>>712645778
fucking based

>>712645778
>hate crimes aren't real because all crimes require you to hate
This is correct, though. The idea that a crime is more or less heinous because of arbitrary factors is wrong.
>You [ay for the deed to the land but you don't own the land and it can be reclaimed under duress, but that doesn't give you the legal or moral right to pilfer land
It actually does give you that right, but the issue is that the State owns the monopoly on violence so he consequences would be swift and merciless. They're allowed to do it, so everyone should be allowed to do it.

People bitch and cry and moan about all this lawyer nonsense when downloading free software is not stealing, simply because getting something for free its not a fucking illegal think.

Stealing is not the act of taking something for free that's just lying somewhere. It's an act directly categorized by you taking something away from a person or a business in a way that is malicious and was not out of that entity's negligence, and that last part is the most important.
Searching a website online to download a game is not stealing, its taking something you literally found "on the street" due to the negligence of the person in charge of production. You can't be fined for it, sued for it, jailed for it, etc It's not an activity with any legal categorization.

People who are responsible with actually ripping games and making them available sometimes get in legal trouble due to copyright abuse, but that's something entirely different than just download stuff.

And yes, it is very much fucking important to keep saying that this is not stealing so that the normie opinion doesn't automatically assume piracy is stealing, which can then be used as ammunation for companies to pressure lawmakers to force it into being categorized as stealing.

>>712647030
>you made the claim then it's up to you to back it up.

This isn't your college debate class or a court case. Look it up yourself faggot.

>>712647201
It is true. Devs for gaming studios are paid on salaries like anyone else. Sometimes they recieve a meaningless bonus from the publisher if the game does well that gets pocketed by people like the senior designer. A developer is not hurt by piracy, you're not taking their money, everyone has already been paid and they're not getting a single dime moreregardless if the game sells 10000000000 copies or 10.

>>712647295
>pls find my arguments for me
No. As expected, you're were just spewing lies willy nilly. gg no re

>>712647257
The people ripping the games are guilty of theft. The people who download them are guilty of receiving stolen goods, which is also a crime.

>>712647257
It's not stealing, but it is immoral as the consumer gains access to a good or service without having to compensate any of the parties involved in the creation and distribution of said good or service.

>>712637080 (OP)
If it's proprietary software, you don't own it.

>>712647390
Nope. You can claim it's lies all you want, but someone else who isn't intellectually lazy will look it up and see it isn't lies. Then you'll forever be seen as a retard in their eyes.

>>712637080 (OP)
>has this ever been refuted
Your logic: I bought a ticket to Disney World, therefore I own Disney World.
Therefore, if someone photocopies this ticket and gives it to me, it's not stealing because I don't own Disney World.

>>712647643
This. Piratefags eternally BTFO.

>>712646938
It is insane to think about but ya. Honestly any major ceo can rise up and become the leader of a country. people like elon musk or jeff bezos can just buy a fuck ton of African land, hire some PMCs and become a nation. Honestly Kojima might of predicted the future, in 20 years i wouldn't be surprised if we see an actual outer heaven. The day I see war footage with the soldiers having a company logo instead of a flag is the day I outta kill myself

>>712647625
>who isn't intellectually lazy
Funny choice of words coming from someone too lazy to back up his claims. It's almost like you can't, because you're posting lies.

>>712647450
How can it be theft? The party that it got supposedly "stolen" from did not lose it. Even saying that it's a "forgery" would be more applicable to this case than calling it theft.

Is it stealing if you buy a game from a corporation, and then they decide to take it away from you, without recompense? It isn't? Because you were forced to sign some stupid EULA that never holds up in a court? Then me getting my game back through alternate methods isn't stealing either.

>>712648036
Anon, that's not our future. That's our past.

Before they started to reign in capitalism you'd have companies that had armies and declared war on nations.

>>712649619
nobody has ever been forced to sign an EULA to play a video game
don't like it then you don't get the game, simple as that

>>712644658
What if you actually do pay them, and then they take your game away regardless? Like people paying for movies on playstation, and discovery takes them away without giving you money back?

>>712649838
Tell that to the poor slobs who bought Warcraft 3, and then had their copies bricked and made unplayable because they didn't want to pay for an upgrade.

>>712648038
I took the time to research the information. You refuse to. So yes, you are the intellectually lazy one, not me. Like I said, this isn't your college debate class.

>>712649867
>What if you actually do pay them, and then they take your game away regardless?
Do I need to tap the ToS again goy? Stop being so entitled. You signed your rights away willingly, now suffer the consequences. If you don't like it, you can lawyer up and sink a hundred grand or so to get your $10 back.

>>712649619
No, a company cannot take a game from you. And that has never happened. What has happened is companies have stopped offering services. That is perfectly legal. In fact, the law is very big on not forcing people to provide a service in perpetuity. It's because of that whole "Slavery is bad" thing that they don't like it. If someone provides you a temporary service and they straight up tell you it's a temporary service you don't get to whine about how you were "robbed" when they stopped providing that temporary service and the courts will laugh in your face if you try to get them to intervene in your favor.

>>712649471
It's theft of revenue. And yes that is a thing. Just like your employer could charge you with wage theft if you claimed you worked hours that you really didn't and collected wages from that. The same concept applies to theft of digital goods and services. By receiving it for free when you should have paid for it, you have effectively stolen revenue from the game developer and publisher.

>>712650243
Then explain companies constantly altering games you own and taking content out, even though you already paid for it. IE Grand Theft Auto losing songs because muh copyright license ran out.

What if I was to make a backup of all those files, so they couldn't alter them without my consent?

>>712650359
That's a dangerous slippery slope you got there. You could use that line of logic to argue that someone stole money from a company if they watched a movie on youtube, or hell, they went to someone's house and watched a movie with them. "Potential profit lost" is dangerous because you can stretch out to make anything a crime.

>>712649867
Tough shit. You agreed to the terms when you made the purchase and the terms say that your license to use the product or service can be revoked at any time for any reason with no refund or other recompense for loss of the license.

>>712650148
>I took the time to research the information
No you didn't, because you're lying.
If you had even a shred of proof, you'd have posted it long ago just to rub it in my face.

>>712650552
I disagree with that. I bought it, now it's mine. And if you don't provide it to me, I'll find another way to enjoy it.

>>712637080 (OP)
piracy isn't stealing because words have meanings

>>712637080 (OP)
>piracy isn't stealing
ftfy
no conditionals needed

>>712650546
>IE Grand Theft Auto losing songs because muh copyright license ran out
That would only be a problem for you if you relied on their service to acquire the game again. Companies are allowed to change their stock. They're not required to keep a specific item in the exact state you want it to be in in perpetuity. They are not required to maintain your shit for you. Your whining about a thing companies do routinely and is not in any way unique to video games.

>>712650684
But you didn't buy it. You bought a usage license. You did not buy ownership rights to the movie or game. This is very clearly spelled out in the EULA. And even if you didn't read it, it's still enforceable. Just like if you signed a contract without reading it, you would still be bound to the terms of that contract.

>B-b-but I didn't sign the EULA

Implied consent. Look it up.

>>712650597
You can keep claiming that all you want. Anyone else can look it up for themselves and see I'm not lying. So I'm happy to let you keep screeching and making yourself look like a retard.

>>712650903
>That would only be a problem for you if you relied on their service to acquire the game again.
Anon, you don't understand. They were literally taking the songs from people's installs that were already on their computers. And due to how steam works, you cant opt out of the updates unless you stay offline forever.

>>712650942
>you bought a usage license
Nah, I brought a product. Based EU dabbing on EULA babies.

Pretty sure I own these

>>712650942
Do their advertisements say "buy our game" or "buy a usage license for our game"?

>>712651178
>he didn't read the disc rot EULA
lol at this guy

>>712651035
>a-actually i'm not pwned! you're pwned!
Now that you have been exposed as the lying (You) farmer you are, my work here is done.

>>712651270
According to the EU it doesn't even matter.

>>712638068
Piracy is like distributing or downloading scan copies of a book. Your analogy would be like borrowing and then never returning a game from a rental store back when those existed.

>>712644658
>but it is immoral in the sense that the creator/distributor of the good is not compensated
what if the product hasn't been sold or distributed for decades, no one gets any kind of compensation
if the company or publish doesn't put it on a storefront what then

>>712650359
Lmao "theft of revenue" isn't a legal term, anon, it's a thought-terminating buzz phrase. You can't steal something that doesn't exist—potential revenue is not actual property. That's like saying rain stole your chance to sell lemonade because people stayed inside. Companies pull this nonsense line all the time to vilify consumers while they gut games, delist titles, and shove DRM up our asses. Cry harder for your beloved corpos.

>>712651178
oooo vidya shelf. Whats that one n64 game sitting on top the nes games?

>>712650942
>ownership rights to the movie or game
>the jeet outs himself again

No one has ever claimed that. You're trying to conflate buying a copy with buying the entire franchise, a shill tactic commonly known as muddying the waters.

>>712651140
>They were literally taking the songs from people's installs that were already on their computers.
No, they were offering an optional update. The fact that Steam requires you to go to offline mode in order to not be forced to install an update is not the fault of the developer. Go bitch at Valve if you don't like it.

>>712638529
I've been to a library recently, but only because I don't have a printer anymore and they allow visitors to print documents for a small fee. It's pointless to borrow physical books when epubs and audiobooks exist.

>>712651140
Well if you live in the EU, good for you. I'm talking from the perspective of US law because that's where the majority of people who use this site live.

>>712651270
Entirely irrelevant. I love how you piratefags keep thinking you're clever coming up with what you think are these little "gotchas" without realizing all this shit has already been hashed out over the years in the courts and through legislation.

And for the record, literally no game has the words "buy our game" in their marketing material. So your little "gotcha" fails on pretty much every level.

>>712651368
>what if the product hasn't been sold or distributed for decades
Copyright, aka creators' god-given right to earn money from the fruits of their labor, says it's illegal, therefore you're evil and wrong. Repent, thief.

>>712651178
>hey mom and dad, this is my boyfriend's room

>>712637080 (OP)
>if I don't pirate it, someone else will
I can't find a flaw in that statement

Copyright should be relaxed so that it only lasts 12 years or so.

>>712651178
>xena
>rocky horror picture show
>dexter
>sonic
Anon confirmed trannie

>>712651563
Again, you aren't buying ownership rights, even of just that copy. You are buying a usage license. This has already been hashed out in the courts. You faggots are still trying to argue something that has been settled law for a long time now. And if you tried to argue this in court now, the opposing counsel would embarrass you with all the case law, legislation and legal precedent that counters your arguments.

>>712637080 (OP)
My question is why the fuck are people trying to make this into a moral thing? If you want free shit then you pirate, if you want to pay the company then you buy it. It's not hard to understand, trying to bring morals into it just makes you look like a giga-faggot who needs to justify yourself in doing what basically everyone else does daily.

>>712651841
I don't mind copyright being for the lifetime of the creator if the creator is a person and they did it on their own. If it's not a person then 20 years, same as patent. No inheritance of copyright either. No more estates that did absolutely nothing living off the hardwork of some guy that died 50 years ago.

Companies waste more money hiring firms, going after pirates and employing anti-piracy solutions than they regain from the """""""""""""""""""lost sales"""""""""""""""""""""

>>712651969
>>712651651
>YOU DON'T OWN NOTHING
Well, I disagree. If Nintendo doesn't want me making pirated copies of games I already bought 30 years ago, tell them to come to my house and confiscate my SNES cartridges.

>>712651969
>where the majority of people who use this site live
itcametomeinadream.jpg
moot only ever divulged userbase geo data once, and it was a 40/60 burger/other split. So yes, I am indeed buying ownership rights of that copy regardless of what a shrinkwrapper says since I'm statistically more likely to be in a place where consumer rights is a thing.

>>712652461
According to that EU study on piracy merely making your game online only is an extremely effective solution to preventing lost sales.

>>712652507
You can disagree all you want. Your disagreement is irrelevant to the courts. And yeah, you'll probably go your whole life without facing consequences, but if you ever do face consequences, you need to understand that you're going to get BTFO in court.

>>712652507
>tell them to come to my house and confiscate my SNES cartridges.
they will

>>712652632
Which is why even single player games need to be online now. So if you hate all the "online only" bullshit, you can blame piratefags for it, not the game developers.

>>712637080 (OP)
piracy was never stealing you tard
it's copyright infringement

>>712652632
>extremely effective
If that's the case then you surely won't have any problems citing the chapter/section.
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf

>>712651715
nah jesus pirated wine and bread, I'm with jesus

>>712652865
And guess what another term for copyright infringement is? Intellectual property THEFT.

>>712647384
>everyone has already been paid
Yes. Everyone fucking knows that. You don't buy a game to pay people for that game, you buy it to fund their next game, and if someone made a game you like you should want them to make more games, you should want them to stay in business, you should want those devs to stay employed there.

>>712646037
So if I pick a nice flower I see on a walk I'm being immoral?
Was colonialism immoral, then?

Renting. You're renting. You are stealing a rented product. This is the equivalent of test driving a car and then saying it's rightfully yours.

Gamers are genuinely some of the dumbest people on the planet.

>>712652994
So you won't have a problem when Nintendo nails you to a cross for pirating their games?

>>712653026
show me the law that decribes copyright infringement as theft you dumbfuck

>>712637080 (OP)
>get service
>leave without paying
Maybe it's not stealing but it's whatever this is

>>712653079
Yes to your first question. The land you plucked that flower from is either owned by a private organization, private individual or the government. Meaning you are removing something from someone else's property without their permission. That is immoral.

>>712653207
>Do my homework for me

No.

>>712653179
>unironically making the YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR argument in 2025
If I steal a car, the person I stole it from no longer has a car. If I "steal" a game, no one loses anything because digital media can be copied infinitely.

>>712653179
With physical products, the owner has a limited number of objects, if you don't return one they are losing money by not being able to rent the item to others, and having to reacquire it

>>712651590
Reading a physical book is a nicer experience than reading it in a digital format.

>>712653474
Ok. Use that defense in court and see if it works.

>>712653474
>If I "steal" a game, no one loses anything because digital media can be copied infinitely.
The owner of the product is losing a sale. He is losing financial compensation.
>>712653491
You pirating a game is a loss of a sale. See above.

>>712653630
Literally no one is going to court for pirating games, kek. At worst you'll get a C&D letter which you can simply ignore.
>>712653680
If I was never going to buy the game anyway, then no sale has been lost.

>>712645389
>So do I own my right to rent it, then?
read the user contract you signed when you brought it
>If that's the case, how can they revoke the right to rent the software?
if it even existed in the first place they would send you a mail telling you about your revoke right to rent the game, if you fail to comply you are summoned to court and will pay a fine for not complying.

>>712653031
You're naive if you think this is how the world works. Things have been planned out years in advance and anything getting a sequel is because that was part of the plan not because it sold well or not.
Maybe two decades ago what you describe would have been the case, but today in all culture industries the only things getting made by major companies are those they can make a profit on. They've already done the research, tested the products on focus groups, decided what's going to get a unfathomably large marketing budget etc. etc.

Capitalism has been disasterous for humanity's creative output.

>>712652184
How the fuck is "buying this is the objectively right thing to do but i'll just take it for free" not a moral issue?

>>712653680
>You pirating a game is a loss of a sale.
nope

>>712653782
If you are not going to buy the game, why should you be entitled to it?

>>712653376
And what about the second question?

P.S. what does boot taste like?

>>712653782
>If I was never going to buy the game anyway, then no sale has been lost.
There is no way to tell if you would have bought the game otherwise. This is the equivalent of sneaking into a movie theater to see if you would like the movie.
>>712653898
Yup,

>>712653680
>You pirating a game is a loss of a sale. See above.
This has been disproven.

>>712652975
Chapter 7. Displacement rates. Start reading. They straight up say having pirates locked out of content due to online only restrictions is the only effective way at turning an illegal transaction into a legal one.

>>712637080 (OP)
Its technically not true, since licensing is still revenue.
Morally it is true, because licensing is essentially product usury.
Its almost never used correctly however. The phrase is now a reddit buzzword with no real meaning. When Nintendo came out with the keycards to encourage 3rd party developers to give people the ability to own their digital games, the response was "if buying isnt owning, piracy isnt stealing", which shows that like "based", its now just a way for low iq faggots to express how gay and retarded they are, and using it comes with a high risk of people thinking you are also a smoothbrained homosexual.

>>712653926
I don't actually own the game if I buy it, so why should the developers be entitled to my money?
>>712653961
It's pretty easy to tell, actually. I just gone done playing the Stellar Blade demo. Pretty cool game, I enjoyed my time with it, but I would never in a million years spend 70 fucking bucks on it. I know for a fact that I am not going to purchase it, but I will happily play it once Denuvo is removed.

>>712654626
>gone done
got done*

>>712653186
I will have died for /v/'s pirated sins

>>712654626
What kind of argument is that? The industry selling licenses does not make you entitled to the entertainment they are selling licenses for.

Is that the guy who made Gnome?

>>712654626
>why should the developers be entitled to my money?
because you are indulging in the service they are providing! I hope you realize you're acting like a fucking nigger wanting free shit from others without doing anything.

>>712654960
If the industry is allowed to say
>you purchased the game but you don't have the right to play the game
then I am allowed to say
>I will not purchase the game but I have the right to play the game

>>712654960
There is no logical argument, anon, he's coming from either a moral or poorfag perspective, more than likely the latter.
poorfags can never explain their position because they dont want to admit their condition, and the moral argument is a rare find because it involves criticism of judaism, which is illegal in most countries and at least one US state.

>>712655152
>service
No, it's a product. I bought it, I own it for life. "Licenses" are kike nonsense.

>>712652703
>>712652765
Two more weeks!

>>712655175
No, you don't. The developers and publishers own the product they are offering and very transparently tell you that you are buying a license to use the software for your personal entertainment when you are making the purchase. If you do not agree to that arrangement, you can not make the purchase. You are not entitled to experience the product just because you disagree with the deal being offered.

>>712645940
somehow pretending to be a criminal is even more gay and cringe.

>>712653026
https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/

>>712654086
It says it makes pirates more likely to buy after trying, if they get hooked and there's additional content to be had. Not that it's "extremely effective".

The whole "try before you buy" thing is what makes piracy a gain overall, but only for devs that spit out shit worth buying. The industry doesn't like that, because making games worth paying for takes more effort than spitting up Slopgame [current year] Edition en masse.

>>712655536
it is not a product you fucking chimp
Like it or not this is the way sells of games work
stop agreeing to the tos if this isnt acceptable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslcnw-9KbI&ab_channel=stoodakiss

>>712655675
>very transparently tell you
Oh, you mean in the fifty-page Talmud ToS intentionally written to be incomprehensible to non-lawyers? Because when I go to buy a game on Steam (or literally any other platform), it says "buy Stellar Blade", not "buy an invisible magic ticket that grants you the temporary privilege of playing Stellar Blade".

>>712647215
You have no idea what he even said and are just blindly agreeing in the hope of looking smart, you fucking sycophant. Blow your brains out.

>>712656082
>the MAFIAA getting told to knock it off with the jewish tricks
That may be an old article, but it still warms my heart.

>>712651545
Xena the warrior princess. I'm a true man of culture, you see.

>>712651915
The Rocky horror is my sister's, but everything else is mine, I own up to it 100%

>>712656215
Right there below the "proceed to payment" button on Steam, bucko.

>>712656138
>The whole "try before you buy" thing is what makes piracy a gain overall, but only for devs that spit out shit worth buying.
No. They clearly say only it's only for games that the pirated version is missing content that can only be obtained by legally acquiring it. If the game is great but there's nothing to be gained by buying it after you've already pirated almost everyone doesn't buy it.

That study makes it quite clear that for movies, tv, music and books piracy is a net negative that results in lost sales. For games it says "it depends". The idea that study proved piracy doesn't hurt sales and so the EU buried it is a myth spread by retards.

>>712656439
Hercules was better.

>>712656818
>TOS that only released after 25 years of steam being up
And let me guess, you're gonna say that it applies retroactively, right? Like a moron.

>>712641509
if i don't pirate it someone else will

>>712646061
5 seconds after posting was picked up by Napalm Records.

>>712638913
Actually yes.
They are obscuring what you are technically paying for.

>>712640185
>the Cuckmerican government tells some random Scandinavian IP to block access to torrent sites that are out of reach of Fatmerica
>"lol fuck off"
>Pigmerica screams and throws a tantrum
>nothing happens

>>712656183
>it is not a product you fucking chimp
Yes it is. Words have meanings and arbitrarily redefining them is a Jewish trick. If it's an offline single-player game, it is a product, not a service, simple as that.
And I realize this is difficult to understand for someone whose worldview comes from South Park, but ToSes are not magic. They still have to follow the law; the human centipede would still be illegal even if you signed a contract saying "I consent to being turned into a human centipede".
>>712656818
Wow, so transparent, all that legalese hidden in the corner will definitely be understandable by the average person! And again, I do not give a shit what any EULA or ToS says, because licenses are bullshit and inherently immoral. This shit is how you end up with farmers getting sued for repairing their own tractors because "erm, you only bought a LICENSE to use the tractor, you HAVE TO pay John Deere to repair it for you!"

>>712653841
Talk about naiveté. Capitalism is a modern label for the social ties that have bound humans for exactly as long as creative output has been a thing on planet earth. Tit for tat, labor for reward.

>>712657158
It doesn't matter to them either way. Even if you fully buy a legal, physical disk of a game, they'll still try to claim that it's just a license and that they have the right to revoke it at any time, without reimbursement.

>>712657046
I can do this all day, bucko

>>712639415
Innocent until proven guilty, they aren't criminals until found guilty.

>>712657325
>um, we can change the TOS at any time, and if you disagree, we can steal all of your games back
Forcing someone to sign a contract under duress. Doesn't hold up under court. Next!

>>712657247
It literally says the purchase is for a license right at the purchase page. And if that snippet of the agreement is "legalese" to you, you have even bigger problems than you let on with this retarded argumentation.

>>712656818
>>712657325
You are an obnoxious boomer, your family has severed all ties with you, and you will die alone and unloved.

>>712657449
They're not stealing anything back because they sold you a license that they, in that very agreement, outline that they have the right to revoke at their discretion.

If you do not like this, you can not use Steam. And if you do that and then pirate the games so you can experience them regardless of you disagreeing with the deal offered, then you are the immoral agent in this story.

>>712657680
>you see, your honor, we wrote a blurb on page 534 of the contract that we can break into his house and kill his family if he watches his rented movie past 9 PM, that means it's legal!

>>712637080 (OP)
its a cute phrase but one that relies on piracy that still works in an environment that gets increasingly online dependent. You can't even crack your games these days if they depend on server run by the publisher (even if its singleplayer)
its also why i slightly cringe at the people that say "thats why physical is the way to go" even though they're in the exact same boat as digital releases

>>712657479
Okay, let's do a simple yes or no question: Do you think it's morally right to prohibit farmers from repairing their own tractors which they purchased with their own money? They only bought a license to use the tractor, after all, it was in the fine print!

>>712657434
The definition of a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, not someone who has been convicted of committing a crime.

>not a single correct refute to op’s post
keep seething long nose tribe

>>712657874
>"thats why physical is the way to go"
i don't even blame them cause thats how it used to be, but shits changed in the past decade with live service gaming. Physical media can longer be a guarantee of genuine ownership and preservation

>>712645778
>akin to saying hate crimes aren't real because all crimes require you to hate
This is true, and you're jewish.

>>712657785
Agreement clauses cannot make it legal for any of the involved parties to do something illegal. Revoking a license is not illegal, it's akin to taking away your library card.

In fact, that is the perfect analogy. When you take books from a library using your library card and then fail to return them, the library will revoke your card and possibly even ban you. Steam is the digital equivalent of a library, except they actually allow you to keep your loaned games indefinitely (or at least as long as they offer the service). Unless you break the rules, of course, in which case they revoke your access to the library.

>>712657247
>Words have meanings and arbitrarily redefining them is a Jewish trick
ok first off no. Words change meaning as time goes on. Like how faggot no longer means bundle of sticks.
Secondly nobody is even changing the definition. Companies have made it VERY CLEAR they are providing a license and NOT A PRODUCT. I sent the south park clip as the point of READ WHAT YOU LEGALLY AGREE TO! No shit the tos cant just say "we have the right to rape you". But you should still read what you are getting into. If reading a contract is too much or too Jewish for you that you will never make it.

>>712645778
Randomly capitalizing Words doesn't make you look Intelligent. It makes you look like Chris Chan.

>>712658139
And you don't think there's any legal or moral problems with being allowed to change a tos AFTER you agree to it, and forcing the party to agree to the changes, lest they lose everything they purchased?

>>712657880
If they failed to properly research what they are agreeing to, then that is on them, yes.

Caveat emptor, bitch nigga.

>>712658067
It doesn't need to be refuted. It's incomplete. He hasn't shown the link between the first argument and the conclusion. He may as well have said
>If the sky isn't green, piracy isn't stealing

PERPETUAL LICENSE
ITS A GOOD
NOT AN ACTUAL SERVICE
FRAUD

>>712645778
>you own a license that can expire whenever and you agree to that because you clicked okay on our 200 page ToS.
t. genuine commerce interlocutor

>>712658272
>research product
>looks like it functions
>buy it
>IMMEDIATELY breaks because of planned obsolescence purposely put in by the company
>this is somehow my fault

Piss off.

>>712637080 (OP)
>uhhhhhhhhhhhhh i have to justify pirating stuff, because i just need to okay
just pirate, you do not need to justify anything.

>>712658494
THIS! Preach it, xister!

>>712658494
Right, who cares what judges think.

>>712658272
Slave mentality. I have nothing further to say to someone so cucked by Davos that they think it's fine to not own the physical objects they paid for.

>>712658270
It's an ongoing service. For instance, a library can suddenly choose to prohibit the use of shoes in its interiors, and ban those who do not agree to that.

The owner of the property/product can choose to do whatever they want with it, and those with a license to access that property/product are beholden to the terms offered by the owner. This is all very basic shit.

>>712658272
>nigga
"Opinions" discarded.

>>712658382
SO actually even if its the transfer of ownership via a perpetual license when you bought it, it still means the TOS lets them brick your product without you able to repair it :) Please don't question, eat the bugs , be happy etc

-Schlomo Cumberg

>>712639791
>no personal risk
>no victim
>no consequences
tell me again how it is a crime

>>712658625
At the time of agreement does not include arbitrary bipolar schizo moments for the rest of time.

>>712637080 (OP)
You aren't stealing a product, you are stealing a service however.

>>712653179
>this is the equivalent of using a magic machine to make a perfect copy of a car and then saying the perfect copy you created is yours

>>712653680
>You pirating a game is a loss of a sale.
You pirating a game you had no intention of purchasing is not a loss of a sale. Only moralist redditors oppose piracy because they have been trained by their jew masters to always financially support Disney like good little consumer cattle.

>>712658552
>judge
nigga if you are in court over pirating stuff it's over already no matter the weird justification you use.

>>712658625
What benefit does it offer me if you try to dictate how I enjoy a game I paid for, offline? you've never actually explained how this is good for the customer.

Nog publishers don't want to make live service games a subscription as they should be (otherwise no sane person would buy it) so they market as a good to milk you for cash and then still brick your ability to play it anyway (even though you're the rightful owner of that copy) Please buy the sequel!!

>>712637080 (OP)
Very convenient that somebody can torrent every video game ever made with a clean conscience because of the theoretical ownership he'd be deprived of if he had bought them.

>>712658738
Yes it does if it is in the fucking agreement, like it is in the case of Steam. How are you this dense?

If there is something in the agreement you do not agree with, you are free to decline it. But that means you are not entitled to the products Steam offers. And if you then procure the products illegally anyway because you feel like you somehow deserve entertainment, then that's pure, undiluted "gibs me dat" nigger behavior.

>>712659049
Wow, so turns out you do need to justify it. Curious.
>>712659102
>you've clicked okay on our 200 page document so get fucked
Epic genuine approach to business. Why would people be mad?

>>712658272
You are quite literally a cuck. You own a cuck chair and watch black men plow your wife.

>>712659102
But I still bought the products. Why the hell do you think it's okay to dictate how I enjoy MY games after I bought them? and yes, I said MY games. Not licenses. Not rentals. You greedy merchants can shove in as much legalese as possible, all it boils down to is that you want to take away something I purchased, without reimbursement.

>>712637080 (OP)
Piracy isn't a crime in my country as long as you're not making money out of what you pirated, so I don't have to care and I wouldn't even if it was.

>>712637080 (OP)
>Be self proclaimed 'pirate'
>Actually just go around advertising yourself constantly, begging for attention and trying to justify shitty behavior

You guys should just call yourself 'Gay' instead, you act as queer as an average faggot

>>712659181
>curious

>>712637080 (OP)
Digital goods break supply and demand laws but people go along with them anyway to pay the people making them. This is why emulation is often considered ok because the people who worked on the games are not making money off used copies. I don't pirate new games because I have money and want to support the games I buy however I get treated like a criminal by some publishers. DRM and restrictions hurt me the customer and once cracked the pirates get a better copy than I do. If steam were ever shut down even your most fervent anti-pirate would pirate their games back.

>>712659181
>I agreed to something without getting a basic understanding of what I am agreeing to and now I am mad

Stop blaming the world for your own retardation.

>>712659374
>and I wouldn't even if it was.
Then why did you mention it at all you coper?

>>712637080 (OP)
Software piracy isn't theft to begin with. It literally has a separate legal definition.

It'd be more accurate to say if buying isn't owning, then piracy is just.

>>712659457
Case in point lol

>>712653680
>You pirating a game is a loss of a sale
No it isn't you fucking Redditor. If I pirate a game it's a game I had no intention of buying. They have lost nothing. If they somehow make their game unpirateable then I simply will not buy it.
You are a cuck. Go back to Cuckdit, cuck.

>>712659442
Fuck off, troglodyte. It's obviously a design of profiteering through obfuscation. What's confusing is why you're dick riding obviously evil shit. Are you retarded?
>>712659413
Literally me. Doxing is against the law.

Some devs just simply don't deserve my money. Maybe the game is shit, maybe they are faggots, either way, I'm gonna play your game if I want.

>>712659376
>someone who gets video games for free? My brain immediately thinks about big fat throbbing veiny cocks being slammed into the shitholes of other men. you are the faggot btw!

>>712659468
>then piracy is just
Except for the part where people are pretending to care about justice when they really just want to play the new EA or Ubisoft game.

>>712659214
>Not only do I not agree with the terms offered, I believe I am entitled to entertainment so I will illegally obtain your property that you refuse to give to me in a fashion that I dictate

Pic related, it's you

>>712659687
I bought the product, so I am entitled to the product. Your TOS means nothing.

>b-but you're le black
Ironically the law would side with the black guy, because it doesn't want to be racist. Guess that works out for me.

>>712659802
>TOS means nothing because I plugged my ears and said LALALALALALALALALA

>>712659687
On the other hand, they don't even show you TOS until after you bought the game in most cases, not that it has any established legal standing anyway.

>>712659680
>they really just want to play the new EA or Ubisoft game.
lol, lmao

>>712638529
Homeless people need the library to use social media. It's more common than you think.

>>712659857
This but unironically.

>>712639115
My buddies used to rent movies there for free once Blockbuster went under.

>>712659582
>It's obviously a design of profiteering through obfuscation

Except there is no obfuscation. It's all there in searchable plain text. Open the TOS, hit Ctrl+F and write in "License" and the very first result will show you the information that you think is hidden in a draconian way.

>>712659991
see
>>712656818

It's on the page before you make a purchase.

Do you guys even take copyright law seriously? It's a jumbled and confusing mess of retardation.

>law says you can make legal backups of computer programs like games, but you cannot do the same for music and films because they're copyrighted
>even though games also contain music and film segments aka cutscenes

see the retardation here?

>>712659680
No one who pirates is wasting their bandwidth for EA or Ubislop.

>>712660147
True, the only way I know of how to communicate the apr for my payday loan service is in the tiniest font imaginable berried in the depth of a wall of text. Not like this is a common practice or anything, I am actually an innovative genius for deploying such strategy. Gaming companies would never behave in such manner. Just look at Diablo Immortal and how honest everyone was there. The problem is you're just poor and stupid and blame the world for your stupidity. Fucking amen, brother.

>>712660418
Except that, as shown in >>712656818, you don't even need to open the TOS to see you are buying a license because it says it RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE BEFORE PURCHASE, EMPHASIZED WITH A PICTURE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION.

>>712660631
Doesn't mean anything since they can just change the TOS without your consent.

>>712660631
Study the whole document? Are you retarded? Just know where took. Everyone is a legal scholar who passed the bar by the time we leave elementary school. Fucking true.

>>712660330
I was in the /v/ threads where they were bragging about it, so..

>>712660838
Post screencaps or it didn't happen.

>>712650942
How can they enforce a EULA you can only read after you've purchased the game and opened the sealed box, and doesn't give you the ability to return and refund it if you decline?

>>712660256
On Steam. What about when people buy games physically?

>>712660701
And if they do, they will give you a full month to review the TOS.

>B-But if I don't agree to the changes, then my licenses will be revoked!
Thems the breaks, take it or leave it. And if you do leave it and then pirate the games, that is you making the implication that you are somehow entitled to the entertainment, which is not true.

>>712660914
To add to this post, before you bring up "w-well you can refund a steam game" keep in mind that people have to bring Valve to court over that, just to let us have that basic freedom. Before that we were expected to just eat the loss of a game that we bought, if it had a major problem that prevented us from playing it. even if it wasn't user error at all, like the game just flat out didn't work on a modern OS, we still had to deal with the problem. Caveat Emptor meant nothing because we couldn't inspect the product before purchase.

>>712658240
It helps people who cant read a paragraph to understand the point of a post with just a couple of words. Like highlighting parts of a text book to say "this is what you need to know". If you wanna get into capitalization lemme ask why did you use randomly capitalize the W in words and the I in Intelligent?

>>712661091
But the assumption that you're entitled to my money because you're legally clever is a-okay. Fucking neck yourself.

>>712661091
>Thems the breaks, take it or leave it. And if you do leave it and then pirate the games, that is you making the implication that you are somehow entitled to the entertainment, which is not true.
They already got my money, I'm entitled to it. End of discussion. If you don't want me doing that, give me my money back. Only a cuck sits down and does nothing while people abuse him.

>>712660890
I don't have any. What was I thinking? I guess you could try paying attention the next time it happens, which is frequently.

>>712661115
>lemme ask why did you use randomly capitalize the W in words and the I in Intelligent?
To make fun of you, you drooling retard. You better be a fucking chatbot.

>>712661049
Physical games do have the notification that they do not actually contain the game, just a code to activate a license, but I will admit that those notifications are often very tiny.

>>712661228
oh so you are retarded. Ok

That's why piracy is prosecuted as copyright infringement and not theft

>>712661325
oh so you are a jeet-coded chatbot. Ok

>>712637080 (OP)
That's not how stealing has ever been defined though. In any context.

>>712645778
Pirate-moralists in shambles.

So, can I steal a rental car?

>>712661206
You might have an inkling of a leg to stand on if you'd only pirate the games you had on Steam after disagreeing with their terms, but we both know that you pirate everything you want to play because you feel entitled to all entertainment.

>>712661098
Very well put.

>>712661703
Sorry mate. I'm a moralfag and will only pirate games I've legally bought, whether they're steam games or even games bought physically. To me, companies do deserve money for their products, if you want to enjoy them, but they don't have the moral highground to take the games away on a whim without giving you your money back. If the law disagrees, then the law is wrong. Simple as.

>>712661678
Unapt comparison because you can buy cars by paying (much) more.
If it was a choice between buying a game for $60 or renting a game for a dollar a day you'd have a point.

>>712660294
Anyone who takes copyright law seriously is a moron.

>>712653782
If you weren't going to buy the game, you aren't entitled to play it.

>>712637543
>meaningless
it has obvious meaning
>incomplete
it's complete
>unfounded premise
shut up retard

>>712661703
>because you feel entitled to all entertainment.
I am. I'm also better than you. If that makes you mad you can cry into your taco.

why justify it

Pirates are softwareniggers, only want shit for free

>>712661253
There are many games that come on disc or cartridge but still wall you with a license agreement.

>>712661872
>If the law disagrees, then the law is wrong.

Ah yes, it is the system that is wrong, not me for failing to """research""" (in quotation because this so called research takes a few seconds) what I am agreeing to.

>>712662217
Corporations don't have any right to make any agreements. They're not people, they don't deserve rights. But they sure feel entitled to influence the law by lobbying politicians to do whatever they want.

>>712645778
>Polysyllabic pseudo-intellectual consumer cuck.
At least you'll die on that mole hill feeling right even though you've changed nothing and convinced nobody.

>>712654626
>I don't actually own the game if I buy it, so why should the developers be entitled to my money?
The theater is entitled to your money despite you not owning the movie. The go kart track is entitled to your money despite you not owning the kart. The zoo is entitled to your money despite you not owning the apes.

>>712647295
>Confirm my claim for me.
And disregarded.

>>712662392
Cope.

>>712662494
You're comparing services to a product that was promised to you indefinitely. Idiot.

>b-but the TOS says
No, for decades you sold digital and physical games as PRODUCTS. That supercedes all TOS and EULA. Once you buy it, it's yours forever.

>>712662494
So you don't buy a game, they charge admission to the game?

>>712637543
fag. got.

>>712662641
>>712662672
Retards

>>712662494
Okay. Just plaster this in the middle right under the title. *YOU CAN ACCESS THIS UNTIL I DECIDE THAT YOU CAN'T WHICH CAN HAPPEN WHENEVER* Easy fix easy life.

>>712662205
TOS' and/or EULA's are industry standard by now, have been for over two decades even. It is a safe bet to assume that a game, no matter how you procure it, will require you to agree to the terms outlined by the provider.

And protip, 99% of TOS are almost carbon copies of one another. If you get to know what is generally included in one, that will apply to most everything you might have to agree to in the future. The biggest differences will be found in agreements for services such as Steam or EGS, and those will generally be outlined at the start of the agreements.

>>712637543
>Erm *adjusts glasses* ACKSHUALLY *snort laugh* it is a fundamentally MEANINGLESS and frankly INCOMPLETE syllogism *scoffs* with a demonstrably unfounded premise, much like the cults that call themselves "religions" *smugly tips fedora*

>>712651178
>COME AND TAKE IT!

>>712662813
Not a counterargument, concession accepted.

>>712645778
Shut up, faggot.

>>712662884
It's already said clearly in the screen you get before you buy a game. If you do not know what a license means, that's on you. And you can educate yourself with the handy link to the full TOS that is also on that page, anyway.

>>712645778
Murder yourself in front of me

>>712663130
Nah, fuck that shit. Don't burry it in bullshit. Right down the middle.

>>712663168
>Just plaster the store pages with redundant information because I am mentally handicapped

>>712637080 (OP)
Even if buying is owning, pirating isn't stealing

>>712663318
>just be a legal scholar bro
Nah, right down the middle. BIG LETTERS.

>>712637080 (OP)
>burgers are gonna die because netenyahu was told 'sir you've exceeded your babykilling quota'
you love to see it

>>712663328
>someone sells product
>you obtain product without paying the seller
Now what would you call that

>>712663549
The seller loses nothing. It's not like I walked into a video game store and took a physical copy of a game without paying for it. If I walked into that store, took a copy of Goldeneye, replaced it with an identical copy I brought with me, and then left, that wouldn't be stealing, either.

>>712663395
>You have to be a legal scholar to understand "The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the content and Services."

My brother in christ, you are only proving my earlier assertion.

>>712663509
Go throw bricks at police and die, Pablo.

>>712663549
>I pay the seller what they ask
>seller takes back the product through no fault of my own
>I'm supposed to be fine with this

You're a crook.

>>712663719
I like my phrasing better
>*YOU CAN ACCESS THIS UNTIL I DECIDE THAT YOU CAN'T WHICH CAN HAPPEN WHENEVER*
BIG BRIGHT RED LETTERS right under the title.

>>712663648
The immorality arises from you gaining access to entertainment without reimbursing its creators/distributors for it.

>>712663549
>original product is removed
Stealing
>original product is not removed
Pirating

Love these threads, always brings out the corporate cocksuckers to show off how much they enjoy the taste of dick in their mouth. Hope you all fall head first onto a sharp rock.

>>712663806
>muh immorality
Oh, so you don't actually have an argument. Back to Cuckddit.

>>712663806
So if I do pay for it, then I can pirate it and enjoy it whenever, without restriction?

>>712663802
>ME NO UNDERSTAND, MAKE DUMBER

Go on now, little Jimmy. And remember that the crayons are for drawing, not eating!

>>712663758
go die for israel

>>712663961
>heh, What daddy couldn't afford the best lawschool?
Remember, BIG BRIGHT RED LETTERS. Right under the title. DEAD CENTER.

>>712663972
Go get chopped into pieces for looking at the wrong gangbanger.

>>712663913
No, because you do not pay for ownership of the content (in most cases), just a license to use it through the service provided by the distributor.

You can say that this is bullshit, but it is how the creators and distributors are choosing to make their products available to the public, and they are entirely within their rights to do so.

>>712637080 (OP)
The phrase doesn't actually make any sense since stealing is not the opposite of buying at all. Even if buying isn't owning it doesn't justify stealing whatsoever, since the other option is simply not buying their product. You are not entitled to the thing being bought here simply because the business selling it is anti consumer, that is retarded logic.

However you can understand the intended sentiment behind it even if the wording is bad and I'd agree with that concept, I'm just being pedantic and autistic about it. Also I don't really care if people steal intangible things like videogames and movies anyway.

>>712664225
>they are entirely within their rights to do so
Then we are entirely within our rights to do things our way.

>>712663648
Ok give me your social security number, you still got the original not like you lose anything!

>>712664225
You're a cuck.

>>712664480
457-55-5462

>>712664225
So it's not about the money. They just want to have absolute control, while still getting their money. And I'm supposed to go along with this.

Unfortunately digital products are not like that. I can easily make a copy of the game I legally bought (provided it doesn't require online to function) and enjoy it without their say. Morally they got their money, so there's no qualms over it.

You just want my money, while not giving me a product. Sorry, I've decided to do things differently. Farmers gave John Deere the finger when they fixed their own tractors. The same farmers spat on Monsanto when they tried to patent the concept of fruit and vegetable seeds. Tell your corporate gods to suck a fat one.

>>712664480
I can't fathom being this retarded

>>712664464
A corporation being anti-consumer does not make it okay to illegally obtain their products.

In fact, pirating will only send the message that you want to play their games even if you disagree with their terms, which will just make these corporations want to apply more and more draconian anti-piracy measures. If they made a game and it sold like shit because people refused to buy or even play it due to their practices, that would be a much more efficient message.

But of course, it's not about sending a message and bettering things for the consumer, is it? It's about you, specifically, getting free entertainment.

>>712664848
>A corporation being anti-consumer does not make it okay to illegally obtain their products.
Sure it does.

>>712645778
>>712656239
I understood what he said and agree with him. He may not be based, but he is definitely correct on this matter. Pirate scum.

>>712664961
>I understood what he said
Sure you did.
>but he is definitely correct on this matter
You're a cuckold.

>>712637080 (OP)
Software piracy was always copyright infringement at worst. It was never "theft" or "stealing" in the first place, even when buying was owning.

>>712645778
While I can applaud a well written post I don't agree, I feel that you haven't considered it in its context

I don't think it's a stretch to say that over the past twenty years or so, the business model of the gaming industry that a paying customer has experienced has changed, or at least an average customer, where they once interacted with a system in which they mostly made one off purchases and were then left to their own devices, unmolested post purchase by any vendor, distributor, or publisher, customers were free to do as they willed, essentially, including reselling the things that they purchased, modifying them, etc, regardless of what end user licence agreements stated they were unenforceable, and largely didn't impact how people used the products they bought

With changes in technology that have allowed distributors and publishers greater control of the things they sell post purchase, that the average gamer is actually buying a revokable licence has become more apparent, and so in the view of many people, their consumer rights have been eroded over time

It's really more of a protest chant than a complete argument

>>712664848
>It's about you, specifically, getting free entertainment.
Except you condemn people who pay for their games too. The legal purchasers get screwed over because companies can just one day decide to take away your purchases and brick your products. Do you know how much of a problem planned obsolescence has been? How about the huge fight for Right to Repair laws?

>which will just make these corporations want to apply more and more draconian anti-piracy measures.
No matter how much money they make, they'll do that anyway. They view all their customers as cattle and slaves. Anything to cut costs.

>>712662392
>>Polysyllabic pseudo-intellectual
If there was even a single word in his paragraph that gave you pause, and made you think about its meaning, you may be retarded, and it may be time to ropemaxx.

>>712664848
>A corporation being anti-consumer does not make it okay to illegally obtain their products
Just saying this over and over doesn't make it true. I completely reject your shit take and reaffirm that it is, indeed, okay.

Just like how it is legal to steal art to train ai, it OK to steal art to train your brain.

>>712665047
>Insults blah blah
Very convincing, bro. You are a white nigger.

Whether something is stealing or not is determined by ruling hegemony, as such it's irrelevant to argue about.

Tell me bootlickers, if I buy the sega megadrive collection on steam, and then rip the roms out of the folder and enjoy them on an emulator of my choice, have I committed a moral wrongdoing? Sega got their money for their games, the very amount they asked for, and now I'm enjoying the games without needing theirs or steam's permission.

If it's about the money, then they should be fine with this. If they still feel entitled to control how I play my games, then they've made a big mistake.

>>712664848
If I wanted to send a message I'd use Western Union.

>>712665158
So you think that if an AAA game was released and it sold less than 100k copies and was also pirated to a miniscule degree, with people specifically citing the terms provided by the publisher as the reason for not getting the game, that would have zero impact on what would happen going forward? That the developer/publisher would just take the humongous L and keep going with the same terms of service so they could take that same L with their next game? Do you even know what the goal of corporations is?

>>712665209
The entire civilized world disagrees with you.

>>712645359
That already happens. It's called taxation.

>>712665583
Corporations all deserve to suffer and die, so yeah they should do that. I'm so sorry I don't have any sympathy for Disney or Amazon or Comcast, when we're regularly subject to our taxes being stolen to subsidize their profit margins, and they get exemptions from the law, and lawmakers literally bend over to make legislation that only they benefit from, and the court system always sides in their favor because justice cares more about money than being blind.

Despite all that, I still believe in giving them money for their purchases, but I won't be treated like cattle. I will pirate a game after buying it, and it is on you to explain why I shouldn't. What possible stupid justification could you have for this?

>>712665736
Name one person other than you

>>712665583
Do you really think they won't do the exact same shit even if they sold a billion copies?
No amount of money is enough money. Every single person on earth could buy a corpos product, and the only thing they would think about is how to get everyone to buy 2.

>>712657274
>Capitalism is a modern label for the social ties that have bound humans for exactly as long as creative output has been a thing on planet earth.
No it's not. It's used to describe a specific historic social/economic form or system that has its beginnings in the 16th century, and that we currently live in.
>Tit for tat, labor for reward.
That's not what happens in capitalism. You're describing a pre-capitalist system of exchange. Under capitalism how much reward you get is not tied to how much labour you do but rather by how much capital you own and your ability to exploit other's labour time. Most people are alienated from the products of their own labour while someone else is rewarded for it.

Please read a book.

>>712645778
wrong, i am allowed to steal because of my logical loophole

>>712639029
>If you couldn't copy it with ease you'd buy it from them
or maybe I wouldn't buy it at all.
I only buy good products, that's why I try them first.

>>712665914
>Please read a book.
Anon, you already know that those kinds of books are banned where he lives.

>>712639029
If I can't pirate it with ease, ill just get one of the 100000 competing products.

>>712657274
Extremely pseudo-intellectual post.
Look up what terms mean, instead of googling alt codes so you can type $2 words.

>>712665902
Line must go up. All must be sacrificed in the process. Just ask Dodge Motors.

>>712665902
That's exactly my point. If you want a corporation (whose entire purpose to exist is to make money) to change their practices, you impact their bottom line. And you impact that bottom line by not giving them money.

>But I do not give them money if I pirate!
Sure, but you then basically say "I want to play your games, I just don't want to pay for them", which in turn makes the corporation double down on anti-piracy instead of fixing their practices. But if you do not buy OR pirate AND make it clear that you are not doing either because you disagree with their practices, the only recourse they have is to change their practices or continue to operate at a loss. And no corporation is going to operate at a loss for long.

>>712665410
That's two different actions. You bought a game legally and that's the end of the transaction between you two. Then you went on to rip the ROMs out. It doesn't really have anything to do with the original phrase, you just turned the question into "is ripping roms morally okay?"

>>712666272
I have no problem with antipiracy measures

>>712666312
It's called restorative justice

>>712666312
but I have a legal and moral right to play those roms. You can't say it's wrong if they already got my money.

>>712666439
So you do not actually care about "sticking it to the man", you just want free entertainment.

>>712666272
The problem is you're implicitly make the argument that if you capitulate and give them money for their product the corporations will then consider your interest as a consumer more which is retarded and not how anything works.

>>712666610
I want both

>>712666610
Why is wanting something for free bad? Are you a retard? Who doesn't want free shit?

>>712665736
>muh civilized world
Yeah real convincing argument there mr corpo cuck. The civilized thing to do used to be to chop the heads off of kikes before they ruin everything, now you changed the definition to be groveling at their feet and begging them to rape you over and over.

>>712666272
>Nobody bought our game
>Could it be the battle pass, season pass, microtransaction lootboxes?
>Nah people love those, we need to put in some more DRM and even more predatory practices next time
Expecting corporations whose leaders don't understand literally anything about the product they are selling to make logical conclusions, doesn't make sense.

>>712666678
Corporations follow the money because making money is their entire purpose. If they do not make money, they will investigate why they are not making money.

The first thing they will think of is that their product is being pirated. But what will they conclude when their investigation reveals that the game isn't selling NOR is it being pirated? And if you add to that a flood of customer feedback specifically saying "Your practices suck ass, and therefore I will not be purchasing or pirating your products"?

You think an entity which exists to make money will just ignore all that?

>>712666610
YOU ALREADY SAID THAT THE MONEY DOESN'T MATTER. EVEN IF SOMEONE BOUGHT THE GAME, YOU STILL IMPLY THAT IT'S WRONG FOR THEM TO PIRATE THE GAME.

>>712667075
I think the fact that they respond with drm rather than investing in higher quality product is a clue that should not be ignored.

>>712667075
Who cares what they think? If they think wrong the free market will replace them.

>>712667075
>Corporations follow the money because making money is their entire purpose. If they do not make money, they will investigate why they are not making money.
First point and you're already wrong. They will follow what they THINK will make them money. Look at Sony and Blizzard. Look at how many failures they've shat out in a short time. Remember Marathon? Remember Concord? Those games couldn't even be pirated, failed anyway, and Sony is like "WOOPS WHAT DID WE DO WRONG? CLEARLY GAMERS ARE RACIST, WE NEED MORE LGBT REPS!"

When sony is circling the toilet is getting flushed for absurdly retarded business practices, ask yourself if they actually know what makes money, or if they even care.

>>712667075
>If everyone just did and thought like me, it would fix everything
Narcissist much?

>>712667187
They respond with DRM because people pirate the games. If the games were simply ignored entirely AND, and I cannot stress this part enough, the public made it unequivocally clear that they are not getting the game AT ALL due to those practices, the corporation would be retarded and out of business within the year.

>>712666581
>>712666606
I'm not disagreeing with the morality per say, it's just redundant. The original topic is, If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing. But what anon changed it to is,
>If buying isn't owning but I still buy the product anyway, is doing a piracy afterwards stealing?
Which is a fundamentally different question then whether obtaining it without paying at all is morally okay when the business practices are so anti-consumer. Anon basically took out the interesting part of the discussion and reduced it to asking if piracy is theft.

>>712667337
So if Sony is failing due to those shitty practices, what is the problem exactly? That's capitalism at work right there.

>>712667412
Would be retarded and out of business within the year if they ignored that*

You cannot steal something that has unlimited quantity.
Copying is not stealing, it is copying. You can call it copyright infringement if you want, but you cannot in good faith call it stealing.

>>712667412
You say that as if it is a logical conclusion. Yet the only "proof" that has ever been made that DRM increases sales in any way, was a single report made by Denuvo, comparing random games sales numbers to each other.

>>712667547
I prefer not getting assfucked for a decade while they slowly fail. But you do you.

>>712667483
The point is that corporations still consider it theft, even if you already bought the game. They still feel entitled to dictate how you play it, and want to take it from you at every turn. This is considered morally and legally okay by the government, so why should anyone care if they think it's wrong to pirate a game? If I was to change OP's slogan, it would be more like this:

>piracy isn't wrong because ownership isn't respected
Hence why paying customers get punished with denuvo and other DRM, even though it's only supposed to punish pirates. When everyone has to suffer for the sins of the few, especially when most people try to do things the right way, what do you expect people to do?

>>712667547
but they're not failing. That's the problem. They literally get to continue operating unfairly, because they steal our tax dollars and get tax exemptions for being a big fat corporation. In effect they're getting our money for free.

>>712644658
I'm going to pirate this game 6 gorillion times so that company goes bankrupt :)

>450+ replies

Fucking pathetic.

>>712667412
>If the games were simply ignored entirely
Piracy is a fucking rounding error when compared to sales. Define entirely. What do you say about other monetization practices such as cash shops for single player games which intentionally were made a grinding hell, battle passes, pay to win, priority connections and all the other psychological fuckery such as flash sales and anchoring, pairing higher skilled players with good skins against you to convince you that skins would make you better at the game and so forth? All is fair on that front?

>>712659181
>you do need to justify it
If you are in court because you pirated something your justifications will not work, you broke the law. The justifications are for social media to appear like an upstanding citizen taking a moral stance on bad practices

>>712667720
They think DRM will stop pirating, and therefore increase sales (Which is retarded, but that is beside the point here). They cannot apply that logic if their games are not even pirated in the first place. Total ghosting of their product with loud feedback about the pain points is the only surefire way to wrangle a corporation.

>>712668058
The judge is a flawed human and the law was made by flawed humans. Jesus pirated bread.

>>712667985
You're lost >>712593641

>>712668058
If you're trying to convince the internet of your moral virtue you've already lost.
*ukulele sounds intensify*

>>712668141
You say that as if they even know how often their games are pirated in the first place. This not even counting for how many of those downloads was from people in countries that can't buy the game in the first place.

Israel is blessed to have their enemies being the biggest retards imaginable.

>>712668141
How do you plan on organizing this type of boycott? Please lay out a step by step plan to achieve your goal.

>>712637080 (OP)
Piracy in the "first" world:
>moralfagging
>cringe
>justifications
Piracy in the third world:
>everybody does it
>based
>nobody gives a fuck

God I love being brown

>>712668287
>If you're trying to convince the internet of your moral virtue you've already lost.
This. people should just pirate and be done with it.

>>712668340
Hey, I'm just telling you what you need to do if you actually want to change these corporations, I never said I would do it or organize it for you. But that IS what you want, right? To change the practices of these corporations and not just get free entertainment?

If so, YOU get to it.

>>712668509
I've been doing that for decades, but people are stupid and never listen. I did what I could.

>>712668496
Your lack of intellectual foresight is why you bomb each other every other week

>>712668603
It seems like the majority disagrees with you, then. Curious.

LMFAO
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/eu-study-finds-piracy-doesnt-hurt-game-sales-may-actually-help/

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/eu-commission-no-evidence-that-piracy-affects-video-games-sales

>>712637543
People who talk like this are insecure retards.

>>712668680
Sorry can't hear you, busy pirating

>>712668509
>just organize something impossible if you want change to happen
lol

>>712668916
If it is impossible, that means the majority of people disagree with you. Tough shit, eh?

>>712669004
That's why I'm arguing for piracy, to gradually get people on my side

>>712668496
Moralizing digital piracy is fucking stupid. Just say you like having free shit. I do. Pirates never had an intention to buy a thing so counting them as a lost sale is stupid. Remember when everyone had Limewire on their PC? When did you guys become such faggots about this topic?

>>712669104
Ah yes, people will surely rally behind you when your actions make their experiences with games worse. In fact, piracy hurts the legitimate customer the most by inspiring the corporations to invest in increasingly draconian DRM.

>>712669205
Yeah, why would anyone ever talk about anything? It's completely pointless.

>>712669286
The hurt customers are more likely to join my side. And the second order effect of piracy isn't something that people think about, when a corporation adds anticheat it's the corporation that gets shit, not the pirates.

>>712645778
Moron. You are sold a revokable license. You don't have to burry yourself so hard trying to look smart.

>>712669561
>The hurt customers are more likely to join my side

By what logic? Let's assume that a game releases with no DRM, it is pirated to hell and back, and the publisher adds DRM in response to this.

Now, why would the people who legitimately purchased the game and were playing the game happily until the DRM was added, as a direct result of piracy, have any sympathy for the party who is at fault for the DRM now existing in the game?

>>712669561
>The hurt customers are more likely to join my side
Wishful thinking. Stop killing games can't even get people to agree that you should be able to use the thing you bought.

>>712669286
>increasingly draconian DRM.
Denuvo literally completely destroyed the piracy scene to the point where even the tranny gave up and it's not invasive at all. Sure, there's a couple games where the performance is a bit worse due to it, but it's nowhere near what shit like SecuROM or Starforce were doing. Pirates unironically lost because EVERY major AAA release is going to have Denuvo from now on and the average consumer will not notice or care.
>b-but piracy increases sales!
Cope harder. These companies have a lot more data than you do and they're all shelling out for Denuvo.

>>712669862
Because they payed for it and got fucked by the corpo. So now they don't want to get fucked again. Pretty simple really.

>>712669862

>>712670012
You can't even stop nintendo emulators lmao

>>712670216
Please name the last time DRM was an actual issue for people who don't pirate games.

>>712670336
I don't know, you're the one who implied drm was bad for legitimate customers.

>>712641945
I dont get the physical copy of the game, while from library its the physical copy that you get. Its not the same. If you copy the book and return it to library, while keeping your own copy, is closer to piracy.

>>712670683
Libraries are piracy

>>712670216
The corpos actions were a direct result of the actions of pirates, though. People will point the finger at the root cause of something. You wouldn't blame the bat instead of the person holding it if you got hit with a bat, would you?

>>712670315
I know you're a retard poorfag grabbing whatever free shit you can, but can you at least stop to think about what you're grabbing? Emulation and cracking are two entirely separate fields and scenes. Denuvo killed the PC cracking scene, this is a fact.

>>712670824
>I was getting attacked my mosquitos so I drained all the rivers your lack of water is not my problem blame the mosquitos

>>712670824
The corpo is directly responsible for adding the drm.

Would you blame the person who made the bat?

Piracy can never be stealing, for there is no physical entity of object being stolen.
Its copying information and that is it. Same as you can do freely with text in books, but digitally. As long as you dont copy for profit, it should not be a crime.

>>712671265
The thing is, why would anyone make entertainment in any intangible medium if it is not protected from unauthorized copying? Especially if the production of that entertainment costs money.

>>712671635
Most people would pay for it anyways

>>712671635
>why express myself if I can't profit from it
corpo brain rot
If you have something to share then share it. If people like it they will show their appreciation. Your worldview assumes people are all greedy cunts without realizing that you're just projecting your rotten core to the world.

>>712671939
But why should those that do not have access to the entertainment?

>>712672157
What?

>>712637080 (OP)
>has this ever been refuted
denuvo and other forms of invasive 'anti-tamper' wouldn't exist if deranged moralists didn't have to strong-arm their imaginary lines in the sand

>>712672226
Why should those that do not pay for entertainment have access to it?

>>712672265
Not my problem

>>712672265
Denuvo exists because greed exists. Has nothing to do with morals. They just want to capture every bit of interest as profit. It's shrimple really.

>>712672331
It increases their quality of life.

>>712672441
Is it not the responsibility of the individual to increase their quality of life? Get a job, get money and get the entertainment with that money.

If you cannot get money (for example, living in a developing nation), then you could either create your own entertainment or look at alternative sources of entertainment.

>>712672661
>Is it not the responsibility of the individual to increase their quality of life?
>n-no not like this

>>712672661
What's the benefit of arbitrarily limiting the supply of an infinite resource?

>>712672837
Man should act morally. Only an animal takes what it wants without care for anything other than its own desires.

>>712637080 (OP)
yes, that's not how IP copyright works faggot

>>712672838
To protect the property rights of the creator.

>>712673004
It's not taking, it's compelled sharing

>>712673004
Uh-huh, tell me all about the morality of a cash shop in a single player game.

>>712673124
A sequence of 1s and 0s isn't property

>>712673205
>Immorality should be repaid with immorality

Hammurabi, get thee gone

>>712673291
So you're anti prisons?

>>712673254
Someone (or rather a lot of people) spent thousands of hours arranging those 1s and 0s. Does that hold no value to you?

>>712673291
>n-no you see you can't fuck me I am fucking you first

>>712673383
It does, and I pay for it when it does. But that's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

>>712673365
But prison is not matching the punishment with the crime. A murderer being imprisoned is not retributive justice. It is punitive, yes, but it is not retributive.

>>712673479
Why should it be optional to reimburse those people, if you want to enjoy the content they made?

>>712673485
So?

>>712673567
It shouldn't be optional if you enjoyed it, but there is unfortunately no way of knowing if someone enjoyed it.

>>712673254
neither is your car

>>712673581
So being against the code of hammurabi does not make one anti-prison

>>712673727
Correct, but that's besides the point

>>712673754
Isn't imprisoning someone immoral?

>>712673762
No it isn't. If I can take it it belongs to me.

>>712673853
As a punitive measure? No. Doing it out of malice? Yes.

>>712673950
I'd do it out of love.

>>712673950
Okay, let's just do the code of Hammurabi, but call the punishments punitive. Problem solved.

>>712673950
That's what I am saying. Start throwing these corpo cunts in prison and gaming will heal. Made a shit game with a bunch of retarded fucking monetization traps? That's a gulag.

>>712674036
Love can be malicious, anon

>>712673940
Yes, that's correct, but that's also besides the point.

>>712674102
That's sounds like an attitude issue.

>>712637080 (OP)
>But Officer, I didn't pirate the game. I simply Relooted it

>>712674185
I can assure you that it's very relevant.